Just how over rated is response time?

[greenhawk]

Let all the other hardcore gamer guys chase after the 2-3ms monitor and ...

True, but someone needs to pay for the R&D for better screens so the masses can eventually benifit from it.

no giggling needed.

In general though, I find most screens are good enough for average use. Just the old saying of "you get what you pay for" caries well in the LCD monitor market.

Just avoid the cheaper end and most people are happy with their screens. The need for the high end can stay for those that need that better colour representation / less ghosting ect.

 

[Anomaly1964]

Exactly this, LCD's are good enough now so the obvious ghosting issue where you could see traces of images are gone. Now people just don't realize the clarity that is missing during movement which is caused by the ghosting that is still there. You will only notice it when you are turning the camera though, just moving forward looks fine.

I've linked this a couple times now but:
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/testsoftware/pixperan.html

This helps demonstrate the response time issues on LCD. For example on the readability test a CRT or Plasma can max out at 30, LCD you are lucky to get 8. It's not a failure of your eye tracking that makes movement blurry, on a monitor images should retain clarity in motion.

In games I especially notice it when playing FPS's, when you realize you need to stop turning the camera a split second to refocus.

Playing the devil's advocate here, doesn't REAL LIFE blur a bit when you turn your head too quickly?

Not making excuses, but a bit more LIFE LIKE isn't it?

 

[Zanovar]

I have a shimmer in the corner of my eyes:hmm:

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Playing the devil's advocate here, doesn't REAL LIFE blur a bit when you turn your head too quickly?

Not making excuses, but a bit more LIFE LIKE isn't it?

They are not the same blur. LCDs motion blurring is not real life. I hate this argument. In real life your focal point is moving. This should not be imitated by a display technology which projects a camera's focal point moving. Why? Because when you are watching the display you can focus on different parts of the display and not necessarily the same focal point as the camera. Not to mention a display is not going to consume your entire field of view (in real life).

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. Let's say you are in a car moving forward and you are looking out of the side window. Your head is locked, but you can still move your eyes. As the environment passes you by you can focus and refocus on points as they pass by so that you can actually see what's happening. Now replace your head with a camera that is pointed the same direction. What that camera captures is then sent to an LCD. The LCD will just show a blurry mess because the camera isn't refocusing on points, and you can't focus on points in the displayed scene because the LCD is already blurring them.

Also there are several other factors why I hate a display technology produce motion blurring, and then trying to compare that to real life. You misunderstand how our eyes and brain work; they do not work the same as the output from a display technology.

If we're talking about video games, leave the motion/blurring focusing to the game engine, not to the display. The video would need to be programmed precisely to actually mimic real life, and if a display has inherent motion blurring then it will never mimic real life.

 

[NoQuarter]

They are not the same blur. LCDs motion blurring is not real life. I hate this argument. In real life your focal point is moving. This should not be imitated by a display technology which projects a camera's focal point moving. Why? Because when you are watching the display you can focus on different parts of the display and not necessarily the same focal point as the camera. Not to mention a display is not going to consume your entire field of view (in real life).

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. Let's say you are in a car moving forward and you are looking out of the side window. Your head is locked, but you can still move your eyes. As the environment passes you by you can focus and refocus on points as they pass by so that you can actually see what's happening. Now replace your head with a camera that is pointed the same direction. What that camera captures is then sent to an LCD. The LCD will just show a blurry mess because the camera isn't refocusing on points, and you can't focus on points in the displayed scene because the LCD is already blurring them.

Also there are several other factors why I hate a display technology produce motion blurring, and then trying to compare that to real life. You misunderstand how our eyes and brain work; they do not work the same as the output from a display technology.

If we're talking about video games, leave the motion/blurring focusing to the game engine, not to the display. The video would need to be programmed precisely to actually mimic real life, and if a display has inherent motion blurring then it will never mimic real life.

Also the reason I hate Depth of Field effect in games, waste of FPS to me. I'm not always looking where the crosshairs are pointing so that shouldn't be the only thing in focus. If the idea is to simulate your vision where different depths are out of focus it needs to know what I'm looking at not what the crosshairs are pointing at.

 

[Ross Ridge]

Also the reason I hate Depth of Field effect in games, waste of FPS to me. I'm not always looking where the crosshairs are pointing so that shouldn't be the only thing in focus. If the idea is to simulate your vision where different depths are out of focus it needs to know what I'm looking at not what the crosshairs are pointing at.

Well, the idea is to simulate the lens of a camera. Effects like depth of field, bloom and lens flare are ment to reproduce the limitations and imperfections of optical lenses. That might be fine where a third person perspective is used and the camera is positioned like it were a real movie camera filming the action. Where your persective is supposed to be that of someone watching what's going on in a movie theatre or on TV. But from a first person perspective, where the virtual camera is supposed to be the eyes of the player, where it's supposed be like you're actually there in the middle of the action... Well, these effects are just lame.

People seem to love this stuff though. A lot of gamers think these effects help make games look more realistic.

 

[Anomaly1964]

I totally get the the last 3 posters perspective (no pun intended), I guess what I am saying that whatever blur that may be there because of LCDs is not enough to detract from the game for me. I've been gaming since the first Doom and have had 19" CRTs that were behemoth, maybe it's just MY eyes, but I don't notice much difference in motion blur from then to now...

 

[Bill Brasky]

Input lag is much more important imo, and that's not rated with most monitors.

Not always related to monitors, but there are definitely some out there that do post-processing and other garbage.

Well, these effects are just lame.

People seem to love this stuff though. A lot of gamers think these effects help make games look more realistic.

I disagree. While I understand your point, I still think the effects you're talking about result in a more pleasing image to look at. However the genius of these effects is that they can be turned off so your games won't look lame anymore.

 

[Jeff7]

Response time sensitivity depends on your own eyes. I could always immediately tell when a CRT monitor was running a low refresh rate, and could pick out when something was 60Hz, 75Hz, 85Hz, or higher. Some people can't see any flicker at 60Hz.


Concerning the no-rules approach for listing response times, there are definitely different kinds of response. Some are black-to-black, some are gray-to-gray, and I'd add in color-to-color, though that might fit under the GtG category. I've got a monitor that's quoted as having 1ms response time at its fastest. (Menus on the monitor allow for choosing between 3 settings.)
It seems to be based mainly on black-to-white transition, at the expense of color-to-color transition. Setting it to fastest would eliminate streaking or odd colors that would occur when scrolling text, but whenever a color gradient would move along the screen, discrete color bands appeared all over it. Slower response times either served to blur those bands, or else eliminated them, but then text looks streaky and a bit blue when scrolling.

 

[snuuggles]

Also, there are certain types of "settings" in games that will make the limitations of your display much more visible. I've found that certain fine cross-hatch patterns are truely unbearable on both my main monitor and my laptop.

And one game I've been dying to (re)play is completely unwatchable on both displays. When I'm running quickly around in Divine Divinity (a Diablo knock-off) the background is almost strobe like, I'm assuming because of the very "busy" grass/tree textures they used combined with very slow pixel response on my displays.

I'm actually curious if anyone else has recently played Divine Divinity, specifically the very beginning (the only part I could bear to play through). Did you notice the same weird visual crawling/strobing? I don't really know how to describe it better than that.

LMK!

 

[OCNewbie]

Just making my required stop in such threads to say "I still use a 19" CRT (at 1024x768 no less) because I cannot stand ghosting and am very sensitive to it." It definitely affects each individual much differently than the next. I still haven't messed with a really high-end "fast" LCD though...

 

[pandemonium]

They are not the same blur. LCDs motion blurring is not real life. I hate this argument. In real life your focal point is moving. This should not be imitated by a display technology which projects a camera's focal point moving. Why? Because when you are watching the display you can focus on different parts of the display and not necessarily the same focal point as the camera. Not to mention a display is not going to consume your entire field of view (in real life).

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. Let's say you are in a car moving forward and you are looking out of the side window. Your head is locked, but you can still move your eyes. As the environment passes you by you can focus and refocus on points as they pass by so that you can actually see what's happening. Now replace your head with a camera that is pointed the same direction. What that camera captures is then sent to an LCD. The LCD will just show a blurry mess because the camera isn't refocusing on points, and you can't focus on points in the displayed scene because the LCD is already blurring them.

Also there are several other factors why I hate a display technology produce motion blurring, and then trying to compare that to real life. You misunderstand how our eyes and brain work; they do not work the same as the output from a display technology.

If we're talking about video games, leave the motion/blurring focusing to the game engine, not to the display. The video would need to be programmed precisely to actually mimic real life, and if a display has inherent motion blurring then it will never mimic real life.

Very well said, bravo. :thumbsup:

Just making my required stop in such threads to say "I still use a 19" CRT (at 1024x768 no less) because I cannot stand ghosting and am very sensitive to it." It definitely affects each individual much differently than the next. I still haven't messed with a really high-end "fast" LCD though...

Same here. I have a 21" Viewsonic CRT G810 and while I get laughs about it's size and ancient nature, I happen to be very susceptible to refresh rates. I paid good money for it and it's lasted 11 years thus far. So I have good eye sight; sue me.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I totally get the the last 3 posters perspective (no pun intended), I guess what I am saying that whatever blur that may be there because of LCDs is not enough to detract from the game for me. I've been gaming since the first Doom and have had 19" CRTs that were behemoth, maybe it's just MY eyes, but I don't notice much difference in motion blur from then to now...

When I moved from a CRT to an LCD I had to adjust to it and I noticed it immediately. You can adjust to it, but it does feel like it takes more work for my brain and puts a bigger strain on my eyes. I played so many games, though, that I did get used to it, but that doesn't mean I don't want it to be gone. It would be such a thrill to have it minimized.

In fact my brother, who is not a hardcore gamer at all, was watching me play on my new LCD and he even said "Why is the screen blurry"? I was like... dammit I knew it, but my other display failed and I had adjusted well enough to make it a non issue. But oh I wish I could have played Battlefield 2 and Counter-Strike (especially BF2, where my performance seemed more hindered) without the blurring. Well actually I wish I could play all of my competitive games without blurring.

 

[taltamir]

ghosting hasn't gone away, the problem is people are used to it and/or didn't even know what to look for to begin with to realize what they were seeing wasn't normal relative to a high end CRT

I believe neither explanation is the cause why its not a big deal anymore...
modern games, sites, etc tend to avoid visual patterns that cause visible ghosting. If I try to scroll anything, website or old game with the "wrong" visual pattern I will experience crippling ghosting. But in anything else (which is almost everything) it is unnoticeable.

 

[snuuggles]

I believe neither explanation is the cause why its not a big deal anymore...
modern games, sites, etc tend to avoid visual patterns that cause visible ghosting. If I try to scroll anything, website or old game with the "wrong" visual pattern I will experience crippling ghosting. But in anything else (which is almost everything) it is unnoticeable.

*exactly* what I've noticed on some old games I'd really like to play.

Do you have any idea if this issue would be substantially resolved with a plasma or 120hz lcd... I'm still trying to make the call between the two. I know the 120hz lcd would likely be a better all-around display, but I need 27"+, and those just don't seem to be coming out, so I may just "settle" for a smaller plasma.

Any opinion if it would make these "old" patterns less aggrevating?

Thanks!

Edit: specifically, if you've heard of it, I want to re-play divine divinity, but the textures they use for the background just seem to "strobe" as I run around - the pixels on my lcds can't seem to catch up. When I walk slowly it's a little better...

 

[Anomaly1964]

Well if I have BLUR I guess I don't notice it beyond what I would expect if I turned my head quickly...

...not everything is going to be in focus. Does that make sense?

 

[taltamir]

Do you have any idea if this issue would be substantially resolved with a plasma or 120hz lcd...

120Hz LCD will do little for it... plasma will completely eliminate it. plasma is a "thin flat CRT" so to speak (replacing the cathode ray tube with plasma to excite the phosphors), a direct evolution of CRTs, and will not show ghosting in those games.
It is expensive, smallest screens are huge, and it suffers from some measure of burn in (Although i hear it is better in modern panels) but it will not have any ghosting. Neither would quantum dot display or OLED

I am not sure its worth the money to me, but if it does to you then go right ahead and get plasma.

 

[JRW]

Gaming on a Plasma is the best gaming experience ive had to date and im coming from a Sony 34XBR960 CRT, But you still have to be careful on which model you buy as some exhibit frequent (but temporary) image retention more than others.

Ive read the 2011 Panasonic models are great for gaming, I'd research the AVS Plasma thread for more info.

 

[Kudro]

I have a 23" ASUS TN panel (rated at 2ms) and a Samsung 2333T VA panel (rated at 8 ms). Using both side by side in cloned display, I can definitely see ghosting on the Samsung. Scrolling horizontally across, say a mountain-side, you can see the edges and textures blur on the Samsung whereas the image stays smooth on the ASUS. However, I use the Samsung as my primary monitor because the colors on the VA panel stomp all over my old ASUS TN.

 

[snuuggles]

120Hz LCD will do little for it... plasma will completely eliminate it...

Thanks, that's interesting, I thought 120hz would make a substantial difference.

Gaming on a Plasma is the best gaming experience ive had to date and im coming from a Sony 34XBR960 CRT, But you still have to be careful on which model you buy as some exhibit frequent (but temporary) image retention more than others.

Ive read the 2011 Panasonic models are great for gaming, I'd research the AVS Plasma thread for more info.

lol! You have the big dog Kuro! No wonder you love it. Yeah, I'm very interested in the 42" s or st series panasonics, I wish Best Buy would carry this size, but I may need to go through amazon.

Quick follow-up, I pan on doing at least *some* text editing/browsing using the plasma, my impression is that with the new displays, as long as I keep it <2 hours or so, it's not an issue.

LMK if you concur, and if you have any other "annoyances" with gaming on a plasma (image retention going from light to dark etc - is it really common or just once in a while?)

Thanks again!

 

[JRW]

lol! You have the big dog Kuro! No wonder you love it. Yeah, I'm very interested in the 42" s or st series panasonics, I wish Best Buy would carry this size, but I may need to go through amazon.

Quick follow-up, I pan on doing at least *some* text editing/browsing using the plasma, my impression is that with the new displays, as long as I keep it <2 hours or so, it's not an issue.

LMK if you concur, and if you have any other "annoyances" with gaming on a plasma (image retention going from light to dark etc - is it really common or just once in a while?)

Thanks again!

It's really difficult to cause permanent burn in on Plasma's these days so occasional browsing isnt going to be an issue. But I wouldn't want to use it as the primary PC monitor, I use mine as secondary for movies / games.

I had a 2007 model 42" Panasonic plasma and image retention would occur fairly easily but it was mainly only visible on a black or dark scene, i'd see faint images of HUDS, channel logo's etc. But the 2011 Panny models are supposedly a lot better in this area.

From what Ive read Samsung plasma's have IR the worst (not sure if that means ALL Samsung models).

Kuro's are still the most resistant to IR it's a shame they stopped making them.

 

[snuuggles]

Well crap. I went out and got the TC-P42ST30 last night.

First, it *did* completely solve all pixel lag issues I was seeing in old games. Awesome! All games look just incredible.

Second, it buzzes like a bug zapper. OMG, how did I not know this before I bought. For anyone even *considering* using a plasma as a monitor, please *be sure to test it out at the store for buzzing*. If you, like me, are sitting withing 4' of the display, there will most likely be a LOUD buzzzzzzz during all bright scenes, most web sites, text editing, and day-light scenes in movies etc, etc, etc.

This buzz almost completely vanishes in dark scenes, and on such sites as steam.

This is a complete deal-breaker for me, and I'm pretty shocked to learn on AVSforums that *all* plasmas do this.

So aggravating. If anyone has any hints or suggestions to reduce or eliminate the buzz, I'm all ears, but from what I've read, it's just the way it is - you need to sit at least 8' back, and *even then* you may hear it.

 

[Anomaly1964]

Well crap. I went out and got the TC-P42ST30 last night.

First, it *did* completely solve all pixel lag issues I was seeing in old games. Awesome! All games look just incredible.

Second, it buzzes like a bug zapper. OMG, how did I not know this before I bought. For anyone even *considering* using a plasma as a monitor, please *be sure to test it out at the store for buzzing*. If you, like me, are sitting withing 4' of the display, there will most likely be a LOUD buzzzzzzz during all bright scenes, most web sites, text editing, and day-light scenes in movies etc, etc, etc.

This buzz almost completely vanishes in dark scenes, and on such sites as steam.

This is a complete deal-breaker for me, and I'm pretty shocked to learn on AVSforums that *all* plasmas do this.

So aggravating. If anyone has any hints or suggestions to reduce or eliminate the buzz, I'm all ears, but from what I've read, it's just the way it is - you need to sit at least 8' back, and *even then* you may hear it.

I am telling you, if you want something 42" to use as a monitor, get a HP LD4200...text looks great, games look great, there is NO tuner is this thing...I still say it's NOT a TV...

PM me if you have any specific questions...

 

[snuuggles]

LOL, I hear ya. OK, I'm going to give it over the weekend to see if I can stand/fix this buzz. The motion resolution is just *so* sweet, that it kills me to return it, but I'm one of those guys that went out and replaced all his fans with scythe fans and sound deadened his case, so you *know* I'm not going to put up with this BS.

 

[Anomaly1964]

LOL, I hear ya. OK, I'm going to give it over the weekend to see if I can stand/fix this buzz. The motion resolution is just *so* sweet, that it kills me to return it, but I'm one of those guys that went out and replaced all his fans with scythe fans and sound deadened his case, so you *know* I'm not going to put up with this BS.

Ok dude, good luck with it!